Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 50 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,558 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Back in December of 2008, Silhouetree made a useful post:
http://personalitycafe.com/personality-test-resources/776-simplified-mbti-preferences-assessment.html

The following is the topic of my concern:

Sensing Characteristics
* Concrete
* Realistic
* Lives in the present
* Aware of surroundings
* Notices details
* Practical
* Goes by senses
* Factual


Intuitive Characteristics
* Future-focused
* Sees possibilities
* Inventive
* Imaginitive
* Deep
* Abstract
* Idealistic
* Complicated
* Theoretical


I am an iNtuitive, and consider myself all nine of the simplified criteria. However, I also consider myself the following from the Sensing category: Realistic, Notices Details, Practical, and Factual.
***
Consider the following:

Are iNtiutives advanced Sensors? Or am I completely off base?
Thoughts please.

 
  • Like
Reactions: betted60

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,764 Posts
I've often wondered the same thing - if an apparent lack of awareness is actually hyper-awareness of certain details that evade most sensors.

I know the first thing I do when I enter a new environment is absorb my surroundings, but my mind is taking in so much information, it's hard to see small things that I deem insignificant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,934 Posts
I see what you did there.. By chance, is intuition being misinterpreted here? It may just be a case that sensors (as described) focus on the constant flow of information from the senses, whilst the intuitive abstracts that information to see how it can apply to the contexts, situations and concepts that can be hypothesized.

Of course we intuitives can make all the assumptions of the effectiveness of intuition, but is it not a slight bias that we believe intuition is better. Likewise, sensors could easily see benefits in their traits as better than the intuitive traits. It is worth a mention.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,508 Posts
I lose things while they are in front of me.
So no my sensing abilities are off. I also can't smell as well as others.
If I am stressed out or menstruating I do get more of an S.
But I am a bit absent minded too especially when there's a hottie around :tongue:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,558 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I've often wondered the same thing - if an apparent lack of awareness is actually hyper-awareness of certain details that evade most sensors.

I know the first thing I do when I enter a new environment is absorb my surroundings, but my mind is taking in so much information, it's hard to see small things that I deem insignificant.
I see what you did there.. By chance, is intuition being misinterpreted here? It may just be a case that sensors (as described) focus on the constant flow of information from the senses, whilst the intuitive abstracts that information to see how it can apply to the contexts, situations and concepts that can be hypothesized.

Of course we intuitives can make all the assumptions of the effectiveness of intuition, but is it not a slight bias that we believe intuition is better. Likewise, sensors could easily see benefits in their traits as better than the intuitive traits. It is worth a mention.
Once, my entire department was each given a piece of paper, and assigned to design an efficient workstation (I've since left the company).
Some crap had hit the fan recently, and I didn't feel that my superiors were entitled to any creativity I may impart. So, instead of arranging processes and machines in a logical order, I drew everything in SOME order and actually drew each little thing to make it look like I had done something, e.g. paper slots, knobs, keypads, little nuances.

Afterwards, I was told I had a great attention to detail. If I were completing the assignment to the fullest of my N potential, there would only be a box that said, "printer."

I lose things while they are in front of me.
So no my sensing abilities are off. I also can't smell as well as others.
If I am stressed out or menstruating I do get more of an S.
But I am a bit absent minded too especially when there's a hottie around :tongue:
Yeah, I know what you mean. I loose things all the time, because I'm not "there" when I set them down. I'm in my head somewhere.

I've heard that if you loose something and you're xNxJ, you're screwed. Ask an xSxP
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,558 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
p.s. to Neph:

Sometimes I wonder if intuitive people are sensing people that crossed over into Formal Operational Thought.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,508 Posts
Yeah, I know what you mean. I loose things all the time, because I'm not "there" when I set them down. I'm in my head somewhere.

I've heard that if you loose something and you're xNxJ, you're screwed. Ask an xSxP
Yeah I have to agree. I'm always in my head repeating past events. Or thinking of what I could of done to make it better.
I hate it when I look for my notes and they're in my pocket! That's the worst one!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,508 Posts
Maybe Sensors are just advanced iNtuitives. Who's to say that one is truly more advanced than the other?
There are a lot more of you. So... there is a evolutionary benefit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: niki

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,558 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Maybe Sensors are just advanced iNtuitives. Who's to say that one is truly more advanced than the other?
Oh Yes! Somehow I expected my Naughty Northern Neighbor to show up with just such a point :crazy:

I can't fully agree or disagree with you, because my initial post was just a thought that I wanted to discuss.
I don't think it's completely incorrect, otherwise I wouldn't have posted it. However, I don't think it's completely correct either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,934 Posts
p.s. to Neph:

Sometimes I wonder if intuitive people are sensing people that crossed over into Formal Operational Thought.
lol, the exact same thought I had when I first read on Piaget's theory.. Strange thing that it is. Yet, this stage is possible even amongst sensors. Think of mcgooglian's formal operational capacities. They rival many intuitives on here, or even the likes of mercury or sleepy, each with their own abilities in the stage.

If however personality were to be assumed (that intuitives cognitively develop "beyond" concrete operational sooner or further), then we would require the supporting evidence, and if such was found, certainly such information would allow not only an investigation into what it is that makes N effective, as well as how types develop. And now my Ni is whispering to my Te - "there is so much more to meditate upon, to test, to support, to challenge", while my Se and Fi are saying loudly; "Damn you JoeMetallic"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,508 Posts
Oh Yes! Somehow I expected my Naughty Northern Neighbor to show up with just such a point :crazy:

I can't fully agree or disagree with you, because my initial post was just a thought that I wanted to discuss.
I don't think it's completely incorrect, otherwise I wouldn't have posted it. However, I don't think it's completely correct either.
We have to remember that temperaments and IQ's are different things.
I've met some crazy smart sensors. I am about average when it comes to IQ.
I mean I might be able to see the whole picture, but it doesn't mean I'm going to come up with the wildest solution for it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,838 Posts
Oh Yes! Somehow I expected my Naughty Northern Neighbor to show up with just such a point :crazy:

I can't fully agree or disagree with you, because my initial post was just a thought that I wanted to discuss.
I don't think it's completely incorrect, otherwise I wouldn't have posted it. However, I don't think it's completely correct either.
It had to be said, by claiming superiority you challenged the ISTP.:tongue:
What is it about iNtuitives that helped you come up with that thought though?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,558 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
It had to be said, by claiming superiority you challenged the ISTP.:tongue:
What is it about iNtuitives that helped you come up with that thought though?
Only remarking on my observations :wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,934 Posts
There are a lot more of you. So... there is a evolutionary benefit.
Certainly are, not to mention that in general, the amount of extroverts (whether sensor or intuitive) outnumbers introverts. I think there are distinct evolutionary benefits to pack tactics which even the most talented introvert must admit. Yet what of introverted sensors? If anything, I would have to say the introverts limitations are in numbers but would be inclined to develop intense thoughts and theories of a kind. The thinking or feeling would be their mutated trait, their defense mechanism, their talent. Whilst then what of the intuitive introvert? Let us assume one condition is the ISxx is a good organiser, they are effective at micro management. The Extroverts were talented enough at making available the resources and defending the populus. The ISxxs then managed the rear, the ultimate maintainers and support squad. They kept to themselves and manifested some great methods for doing so.

Then the populus grew. The maintainance process grew with it, and with a fair assumption on populations of ISxxs, the demand grew for more organisation, more development, better adaptive processes. The brain and heart needed more scope. Hence the more abstract development was brought into effect. The intuitive developed as macro-organisers came into effect. The macro-organiser or system interactive was beneficial for greater numbers and higher demands because the big picture is required to address the greater demand on development. The numbers of these intuitives required less numbers dependent on population size, the mutation of extraverted intuitives allowed for processing in a ready and ingenious "field" manner. Where they can take command on the front. Whilst this is affective, it is resource based like its predecessor the ESxx. Then the development came again to the support, the background system, the organisers that organise in a greater context with more reflection rather than limited (uncontrolled) experimentation. So intuitive Introverts evolve to support this pattern.

This is of course a theory, I do not have the empirical evidence to support it, and would be unable to provide this evidence in consideration of Jung's theory being only 88 years and likewise Psychology as the modern science is only a few centuries old. I do present the theory as an awkward evolutionary assumption of types, based on the trait descriptions in progression over evolutionary development.

It had to be said, by claiming superiority you challenged the ISTP.:tongue:
What is it about iNtuitives that helped you come up with that thought though?
The great thing about evolutionary theory in all its glory. The fact that so many people assume that superiority is the best development in light of limited situations or tasks. Whilst any intuitive that claims sensors are inferior need remember that not all situations favour intuition, and as such, all a sensor really needs to do is take them out of their comfort zone; to show them where their faults are in reality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,838 Posts
The great thing about evolutionary theory in all its glory. The fact that so many people assume that superiority is the best development in light of limited situations or tasks. Whilst any intuitive that claims sensors are inferior need remember that not all situations favour intuition, and as such, all a sensor really needs to do is take them out of their comfort zone; to show them where their faults are in reality.
That is true. No one function is beneficial all the time, I claim no superiority for Sensors because Intuition is useful at times while Sensing is beneficial at times. Intuition can help keep people safe from potential threats while sensing can help keep people from current threats. Without one, the other would be less likely to exist because the other wasn't there to help out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,508 Posts
This is of course a theory, I do not have the empirical evidence to support it, and would be unable to provide this evidence in consideration of Jung's theory being only 88 years and likewise Psychology as the modern science is only a few centuries old. I do present the theory as an awkward evolutionary assumption of types, based on the trait descriptions in progression over evolutionary development.
That was very interesting Neph. I mean it looks really good if the sample group was all growing and growing towards each others benefit.
Or the way I organized it in my brain is military benefit or large scale organization. Which makes sense, but what is the society working towards making this organization possible.
I think we just open a whole new can or worms here.
 
1 - 20 of 50 Posts
Top